The sales tax plans I've seen all exclude necessities such as food and have rebates for the poor. It's quite possible for a national sales tax to be progressive.

You have failed to provide evidence that conservatives do this.

All the time! If you paid attention, you would to!

You simply have failed to make your case.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

No they haven't, they've focused on state taxes as well. As I stated, Mass is a great place to start including the attempts to roll back state taxes, which dems have opposed, as well as getting rid of tolls. So this is a strawman.

They don't and you have provided no evidence otherwise. And liberals (and conservatives) have also supported a flat tax. Also regressive, so?

Because that's a strawman, Bush gave an across the board tax cut and the lower and middle classes got a larger reduction in their tax bracket than the upper classes, that is a fact. He increased the child tax credit. The problem with liberals is that the top earners got any kind of a cut at all.

I don't listen to Rush so I couldn't tell you, but it doesn't make sense for he or others to discuss local taxes. "So on today's show we're going to discuss sales taxes in Ohio, Wed is excise taxes in Alaska, Thurs are tolls in Wyoming..." That makes no sense, that's why they don't discuss it, assuming that your assumption is even true. The largest chunk of taxes paid by people are federal income taxes and it is the one tax controlled by one agency, not 50.

They don't and the fact that they give it more attention than others is entirely logical.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

taxes are regressive. Without exception. If you dont think so, read analysis of them. I posted examples above, naturally they were ignored. I in fact made my case that the actual tax burden is higher on lower income groups, the statements that this was not the case (that upper income groups paid a disreportinante amount of taxes) was made by conservative posters.

As for what national conservatives focus on in terms of taxes, read Heritage or Cato, or Commentary or listen to conservative speakers. I do all the time and they virtually never talk about regressive taxes like sales taxes. Indeed they have championed a national consumption (sales) tax which would be regressive to replace the progressive income tax. Look it up.

The Bush tax cuts focused most gains in upper income groups. Again I cited the evidence for this, and the CBO has come to the same conclusion. The tax cuts were in areas like estate, dividend and capital gains taxes, and the like which are paid primarily by upper income groups. The taxes for lower and lower middle income groups were very small.

Who here thinks its a concidence that conservatives want to replace the progressive income tax with a national sales tax or that Bush cut capital gains, dividence and estate taxes but did zilch about raising the standard deduction

As for whether I proved my case, the data is in the links I presented. Ignoring it does not mean its not there.

You keep posting this, but you have yet to show what percentage of those that are considered poor, make big ticket purchases. Logic says they are not buying Hummers, so what percentage of their income is linked to an unfair taxation? People usually buy items in proportion to their income.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

of who paid what percentage of taxes. Including analysis of the regressive impact of sales taxes. Regardless of what individual item they buy the lower income you are the higher percentage of your income you have to spend and do spend. This is not only theory its well documented and accepted by economist. And the more income you spend, the more of your income goes to sales taxes as a percent of your total income. No one who has ever looked at the data on sales taxes seriously disagrees that they are highly regressive. Try any text or economic analysis.

As for which taxes conservatives have cut or advocate cutting, read their journals or listen to their speakers.

Feds have nothing to do with sales tax in any state. So what is you point?

I would love to see sales tax cut period, but to try and monitor who is poor and to manage how sales tax is disseminated among those qualified would be near impossible.

You continue to hammer on about the cons plans, what is the dems answer?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

couldn't say what the Dems might plan for tax reform but I would prefer to see a flat Federal tax which does not kick in until an individual makes more than 25 or 30 thousand; more for families. Unearned income should be taxed somewhat higher than earned income. The only items that should be tax deductible are health care expenditures. It will never happen because it does not benefit the middle class and wealthy; people with assets avoid lots of taxes through mortgage interest right offs and depreciation of equipment and real estate...

No, income taxes are not progressive. Either are estate taxes. And you definitely did not make any sort of a case that the tax burden is higher for low income groups. As a %, as dollars, total taxes are paid more by upper income groups. Saying otherwise does not even make mathematical sense.

I did, and you are wrong. This site is devoted to total taxes. SS is regressive, Heritage and others discuss it all the time. Liberals have championed a flat tax, also regressive. And of course there is a good reason that federal taxes are discussed more, because it is easier to discuss one tax than it is 50 taxes (not to menion the thousands of local taxes), but more importantly, because federal income taxes are a much larger portion of the pie. The average family pays twice as much on federal income tax as it does state and local taxes. So in a discussion about tax reduction of course you focus on the largest piece. If I'm looking to save money at home I focus on my travel expenses, eating out and entertainment. I don't try and cut my spending on chewing gum.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1441.html

And I provided links showing otherwise, many middle income groups pay capital gains and 40% made under $50K. Income tax cuts were across the board and a larger share went to lower income groups.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../06/11294.html

Many liberals want to replace it with a flax tax. And he increased the child care credit.

You provided links, they just don't say what you wish they did.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

At least, as far as disposable income is concerned. This is due to the law of diminishing returns. The best example I could give is the tax on short term assets. These are taxed at 35%. Now, let us say a poor student buys and sells $2,000 worth of stocks in one year and makes a $400 return. Even though this return may go towards paying for their food, they will still pay the same tax percentage as an individual that has made $1,000,000 on the stock market in one year. Granted, income in general is slightly progressive, but even then, it is counterbalanced enormously by the fact that the rich own duplexes while the poor pay rent.

is not a write off for individuals, you can claim depreciation if you own a business of some sort and depreciate r/e and equipment then, but an individual can not. As far as businesses go, depreciation is nothing more than writing off the expense of equipment over a period of time. Want to suggest that a company has to write off the expense right away instead of over time? They'd love it, but it would accomplish the opposite of more taxes.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.